DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004352300-0010

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-01-13

000117073

Contested design: 004352300-0010

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 004352300-0010 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Plásticos Industriales y Comerciales de Alfarrasi, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Picda, Crta. Nacional 340, s/n, 46893 Alfarrasi, Spanien

Represented by

Garrigues IP, S.L.P

Holder · RCD owner

Papier-Mettler KG

Germany (DE)

Hochwaldstrasse 22, 54497 Morbach, Deutschland

Prior art cited (5)

OtherD1⚠ rejected as evidence

carrier bag

OtherD2⚠ rejected as evidence

carrier bag

OtherD3⚠ rejected as evidence

carrier bag

OtherD4⚠ rejected as evidence

carrier bag

OtherD5⚠ rejected as evidence

carrier bag

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing the contested bag design had long been used before the filing date and pointing to D1 to D5 and internet-based evidence.
  • The holder argued the contested reusable carrier bag met the requirements of novelty and individual character and produced a different overall impression from the earlier designs.
  • The Division held the applicant had not precisely identified the relied-on earlier designs and that the submitted internet prints and declarations did not adequately prove prior disclosure under Article 7(1).
  • Because none of the evidence established effective disclosure of an earlier design, the invalidity grounds under Article 25(1)(b) failed and the application was rejected with costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberIvanka IVANOVA

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

09.05

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000127595

vs Shenzhen Beipengxing Technology Co., Ltd

2025-04-15Art 25(1)(b)097
000126496

vs Jiangmen Xinhui Zhenghua Ironware Co., Ltd.

2025-03-07Art 25(1)(b)097
000119700

vs Guohua He

2023-10-29Art 25(1)(b)097
000119221

vs Aniceto Canamasas Puigbo

2023-10-22Art 25(1)(b)097
000121263

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121319

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121318

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097
000121320

vs MIESZKO S.A.

2023-10-18Art 25(1)(b)097